Again, you're trying to solve an issue looking at the consequences, whereas your "license scheme" suggestion should lay on the causes; as I wrote before, focusing consequences in this case, brings along no easy solutions.
And by the way, why insistently and specifically targeting Metasploit? That is a much broader issue. Best regards, On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:00 PM, n3td3v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The intelligence about who downloads metasploit is already there, but > currently it is not actionable intelligence. > > The license scheme would start to make that intelligence actionable, > without the scheme, you've got intelligence sitting there that can't > be used in an actionable way. > > Its all about making intelligence that is already held actionable. > > You've got known cyber criminals and terrorists downloading > metasploit, but no legislation in place where the good guys can > benefit and the bad guys be lockered out. > > We got to get this situation sorted, the intelligence is there, but > nothing actionable can be done with it. > > We've got to get this license scheme implemented sooner rather than later. > > n3td3v > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > -- Marcio Barbado, Jr. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
